<[Bill Leach 940214.19:02 EST(EDT)]
940214.1030 Hal PEPINSKY@INDIANA.EDU
I thought that Bill P. was a little strong in his posting to you but I
imagine that even he perceives "futility" and "hopelessness" once in
awhile. As far as my "anarchist messages", I can only presume that he
(and others) recognize that they have not been "beating on me" long
enough to determine if I am "mallable" or not.
I am going to take a small shot at what I think is bother you some and
possibly is an incorrect perception of PCT on my part:
First, accepting as truth that we humans always control perception.
Second, accepting as truth that we always have a reference signal with
which the perception is compared for purposes of control.
First Guess, in the case of "high level" perceptions such as maybe
wanting someone (lets use SO) to like us, there is "deadband" region
allowed for the error between perception and reference.
In this case the "deadband" may even be due to something like the lack of
precision or detail present in the reference.
Regardless, if and when the perception fails to match the reference (or
fails to match within acceptable tolerance), the individual WILL act to
correct the perception.
Now presumably a "normal" person will act in some manner relating to the
relationship between himself and SO. Admittedly the action could be
indirect such as giving to a charity if our subject perceives that such
an action will have the desired effect).
If whatever was done is perceived by SO such that one of SO's perceptions
concerning the subject now seems to correspond more closely with the
reference signal that must be satisfied for the condition of "liking" to
exist then SO will act to adjust SO's perception IAW some reference that
deals with beliefs concerning "liking" someone.
If that action is perceived by our subject as now matching the reference
that started this whole thing -- they can ride of into the sunset forever
happy (in this instant of time).
OTOH, if SO "was not impressed" (that is, our subject's action did not
satisfy are maybe even caused SO's perception of our subject to move even
further from the operative references), then our subject may either
"iterate" the process of trying to impress SO or may choose to remove the
reference that causes the desire to satify SO in some way.
···
------------
Now, even I will admit that the preceding is at best a gross
oversimplification of anything even approaching an interaction between
two people. However, I believe that it is in essence correct.
Our "subject" can not change "SO's" perception (short of assault). All
that our subject can do is act to change his own perception. His change
to his perception might be to change how he thinks he appears to more
closely match what he thinks is the fashion in which SO perceives him.
Regardless, he is still doing something to change his own perception even
if he thinks he is manipulating someone elses perception.
Indeed, if our subject does change something about himself or what he is
doing, it is likely that there will be a change in perception by SO
(assuming SO is aware of change).
What IS important here (I think) is that SO will respond to correct SO's
perception if necessary. THIS action is related to our subject's action
only BECAUSE our subject IS a part of SO's environment and NOT because
there is any requirement that SO respond specifically to our subject.
I suggest, that "social" interaction is essentially nothing more than
this same sort of thing mulitipled and made more complex.
How did I do?
-bill